I thought this was EXACTLY your area of law. Real-estate, and all things involved with same. No?

The substance? Yes.

But I'm not a litigator. So I don't know whether the judge stepped over the line when he evaluated, for example, the expert witness testimony offered by the Trump's on the valuation of Mar-a-Lago. They brought in a real estate broker named Lawrence Moens who's put together some nine-figure deals on Florida real estate involving billionaires - he's apparently the real deal up there:

https://archive.ph/IGgup

...who testified that the valuations proffered by Trump were credible, and that he felt the property could be sold for even higher. Judge Engoron dismissed that testimony as unfounded and speculative.

I don't know whether that's appropriate at summary judgment or not. The law school Civ. Pro. 101 description of that stage in pre-trial motions is that the judge is supposed to determine only whether there's still a material dispute of fact on an issue. Even if one side's evidence isn't very good at all, this motion isn't supposed to resolve disputed issues of fact - only identify the issues where there is no real dispute.

Since I don't litigate, I don't really know the specific contours of what a judge should or should not do in this type of situation. I will say that it kind of boggles the mind that Mar-a-Lago might only be valued at $20 million, when homes right next door that are 1/20th the size and not on the water are selling for more than that.